Bank of America Theatre

The Shubert has recently announced that after the $25 million restoration is complete about a year after it is set to begin in Janaury 2005, the theatre is going to be renamed the LaSalle Bank Theatre after the bank's large contribution towards the project gave it naming rights. At least when Ford and Cadillac got naming rights for the Oriental and Palace Theatres respectively, they had the tact to keep the original theatre's name in the new name, but LaSalle has opted not to incorporate either the Shubert or Majestic (the pre-40s name of the theatre) into their renaming. It was generally expected that when the Shubert reopened in 2006, it would be as the Majestic (which is still the name of the office tower that houses the theatre). At least the last of the major Loop showplaces is finally getting its long-awaited restoration, years after the Chicago, Oriental, Palace and Auditorium Theatres got their refurbishments. (see this recent Chicago Tribune article for more details).

I believe some money is coming from the state or city for this project. I can't understand why a compromise in the name couldn't be reached. I think its pretty tacky when this happens.Soon we will have Rite Aid City Hall or Walgrreens University. This is becoming an epidemic across the country and is becoming a turn off to large segments of the population.A more sensitive approach to naming rights needs to happen. I feel this gives corporate America a black eye not the desired effect they were looking for.brucec

What do you expect from the city that gave us "Bears Football presented by Bank One?" I still remember when they were tearing down many of the historic theaters in Chicago, and cringe when i go by the New Regal or the Uptown. For a world class city to ignore its past like this is reprehensible...even if Chicago DOES do a pretty good job most of the time. Why NOT the LaSalle Bank Majestic Theatre? Or the Shubert Theatre for the Perfornimg Arts....presented by LaSalle Bank? Or better yet...jsut put a Ticketmaster outlet for the Majestic in each LaSalle branch....put a plaque up in the lobby....and leave the darn name alone? Just some points to ponder....

Well, perhaps LaSalle Bank and Broadway in Chicago (the operator of the Shubert) will alter the name before the theater reopens after the restoration project. Looking at the Broadway in Chicago website again, the full name for the theater is supposed to be the LaSalle Bank Theatre at the Majestic Building. One the positive side, though, from the illustrations on this page, it looks like they are going to restore the now-cramped lobby, and recreate something similar to the Majestic's original marquee instead of the ugly, boxy 50s style one that's currently on there.

Okay, here's the good news: considering recent banking history, this theater is likely to last far longer than either the bank or the bank's name.

Please correct:

Architect: Edmund P. Krause

According to the theatre history page on the Broadway in Chicago site for the Shubert, the Rapp brothers worked with Edmund R. Krause on the design.

It's good to see that I am not alone in my thoughts about the re-naming of the Shubert Theatre. Where do we draw the line ?

I do hope that before the re-opening, a compromise can be reached. I like the idea of bringing back the Majestic name, and it would be wonderful if they could incorporate both names with " presented by LaSalle Bank " underneath it.

Such a shame that all our treasures are being sold out. ( And I STILL call it COMISKEY :) )

I always felt that when a public venue is being either financed or deed over by a government agency to a private corporation, be it a stadium, theater or whatever, the new name should read: TAXPAYER'S PARK or TAXPAYER'S THEATER. Why not? Taxpayers are putting up most of the money.

I just read that Andrew Loyd Webber's "A Woman in White" musical will have its pre broadway tryout at the restored LaSalle Bank Theatre.brucec

Here is an article on the Shubert project as well as the Chicago theater district at large.

I don't understand why people get upset over the naming of a theatre. While I would certainly prefer the Majestic, or the Shubert, you can't expect companies to give millions of dollars to a project like this without receiving something in return. LaSalle Bank isn't obligated to contribute anything, so they deserve to have their name on it if they like. It's a small price for us to pay to have the theatre brought back to life. Funny, the name Wrigley Field never seemed to bother anybody. I suppose this sort of contempt for corporate naming should be expected with the domination of liberalism/socialism in our culture.

I live in Cincinnati, and we used to have a Shubert Theatre too. It was torn down in 1976. I wish it was still here. And I wish it was called Procter & Gamble Theatre.

Well, first off, Wrigley was known as Weeghman Park when it opened in 1916 until 1920 when the Wrigley family bought the Cubs; it had this name until 1926 when it was renamed in honor of Wrigley. What we would find objectionable would be if it was renamed Chicago Tribune Park, since they own the Cubs now. So that example really doesn't hold. Lasalle Bank doesn't even own the theatre.

We all understand the reasoning behind selling naming rights, as it's a lucrative business; two of Chicago's other centers are the Cadillac Palace (originally New Palace) and Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre (Oriental Theatre). These are okay, because they respect the historical names of the theatre. Corporate sponsorship has become a necessary evil. It crosses the line, however, when it does not respect the historic name of the theatre. If you are restoring the rest of the theatre to its original state, why not also restore the name? If LaSalle Bank owned the theatre, as the Shuberts did, sure. But the name Majestic was chosen to reflect the palatial character of the theatre; it was lost when it was renamed Shubert. The Oriental or Palace might not have as much impact if they did not have these names reinforcing the nature of the architecture.

I can't see what this has to do with liberalism or socialism, and it's not a question of the theatre being in danger of demolition. It's a question of preservation; if you're going to restore it to its former glory, then do it.

Here is a 1906 postcard view of the Majestic Building and Theatre.

Brian - If you had been around in 1926 when it became Wrigley Field would you have complained? Changing the name now to Tribune Field would be an identical act to that. It appears it's tradition you don't want changed. I share your preference that the historic name of the building be maintained. Although, the Palace and Oriental names were pretty much obliterated when those theatres were renovated. "The Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre." Yeah, that really rolls off the tongue. But at least they were renovated. I like what they did at the Coronado in Rockford, IL. It's still called the Coronado, but there's a plaque inside designating the auditorium as "The Howard Monk Auditorium", in honor of the contribution given to the theatre's renovation. Also, your assumption that demolition wasn't in the cards is questionable. Do you think the Palace, Oriental, Chicago, Auditorium, and Shubert theatres would all have survived without generous corporate sponsorship? The answer is no, of course. It's not naming rights, it's funding of renovation that stirs the drink here as far as I'm concerned. After all, they might get the name, but we get to enjoy the theatres.

By the way, my socialism/liberalism reference, while maybe a stretch, was intended simply to point out how anti-corporate a society we've become during the last generation or two. Lots of people complain about them, sometimes legitimately, but they also do a lot of good things. And many of us seem to have no problem working for them.

Well, yeah, exactly, tradition should be preserved, that's the whole point of theatre restoration. Otherwise, just go ahead and build a new theatre. I certainly have no problem with corporate sponsorship, it's when corporate ego overtakes the focus of the theatre that it's problematic. With the Palace and Oriental, the original names maintain the focus- nobody calls it the Ford Center, and I don't think many call it the Cadillac. They were good comprimises between history and modern economic reality. If you refer to them as Palace, or Oriental, people know what you mean; it would be nice to have the Majestic name known again. But go ahead and let them name it Lasalle Bank Theatre for now; with the way banks are these days, odds are good that it will be something else in 10 years, and maybe the proper name will return then.

The names of Shubert, Field, Wrigley (and yes, Comiskey as well) are names of human beings. We honor humans. Corporations are not human beings. The problem with corporate naming is that they are 'buying' legitimacy. Bear in mind the tax write-offs for corporate sponsorship, so maybe those sponsorships are not all that altruistic. Remember when Enron Field in Texas had to be paid to have their name taken OFF the building? My original point was that, because taxpayers are the main contributors (usually to build a new stadiums), why not name it Taxpayers' Stadium?

We honor humans, not corporations? Ok. Should I bother to list all the well-known names of theatres back in the 1910s and 1920s that were named after corporations? How about Fox, Paramount, RKO, Loew's, Orpheum, United Artists, Warners, etc. These were all corporations whose names were featured on many a marquee. So that argument doesn't work. How about the fact you just don't like corporations getting some sort of benefit? Maybe that's it. It's that, or you just don't like tradition being messed with. Which is fine. I like to keep the original name too if possible. But don't give bogus reasons for it. And even though I agree with your taxpayer point, let me know how far you get with your Tapayer's Stadium idea.

Well, to be exact, one could also say that Mr. William Fox, Mr. Marcus Loew, and the brothers named Warner were human beings before their names would refer to homonymous corporations.

... and let's not forget that RKO stands for Radio-Keith-Orpheum. B.F. Keith was a real person, as were the Shuberts.

Shubert is a fine name for a live stage theatre. It evokes over a century of tradition.

Ok. I give up. Sorry I took up your time.

Regarding GerryC's comment of the 10th on altruism. Do you think that Loew's, RKO, Fox, Paramount or any of the old theatre chains were altruistic? They built these places for one reason; TO MAKE MONEY! If some faceless nameless corporation is now willing to restore some theatre for less than altruistic reasons I, for one, am happy about it.

http://imagesrvr.epnet.com/embimages/imh/mptv/full/mptv70010004.jpg

Source: MPTV
Caption: Martin Scorsese in front of the Shubert Theater in Chicago Il, 1977.

Ok, so tonight I discover that the Majestic (aka Shubert, aka LaSalle Bank Theatre) was designed by at least Cornelius Rapp and maybe both Rapp brothers. This blows the lid off the "earliest" known Rapp and Rapp theatre being the Majestic in Dubuque, Iowa in 1910. Does anyone have any more information on the Majestic in Chicago? I am a real fan of early Rapp and Rapp designs and I can see some design detail similarities with the Majestic and the Al. Rignling Theatre in Baraboo (particularly the broken pediment design over the boxes nearest the proscenium) Does anyone have a good list of early Rapp and Rapp theatres?

This article from today's Chicago Tribune talks mainly about Victory Gardens' renovation project of the Biograph Theatre, but it briefly mentions the status of the LaSalle Bank/Shubert Theatre's restoration/renovation as well. Apparantly, the LaSalle Bank Theatre's grand-reopening has now been moved to sometime this spring.

Here's a few items from today on the renovation. They must have been doing press tours. Looks great! A major difference!

http://cbs2chicago.com/entertainment/local_story_038174120.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-lasalle08.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news&id=3885637

Has any one gone to the theatre since it opened it looks great from what the news and the T.V. spots show?

No: but I agree. I was there some years ago to see a show. It looked OK. But when you compare how it looked then with the post-renovation photos it was pretty bad!

I can not agree with you more, i recall the balc. You had to contend with the miles and miles of lighting and video cable there simple was no place or way to hide it,so you had to sit in the seat and hoped that you did not kick the cables by mistake or you might upset the show. But that is just one of the many things that thay fixed.
If i recall right 190north did a show about it. Go to WWW.ABC7Chicago.com or go to 190North.com and look under "Archives" or if you prefer send them an e-mail thay are very good at returning with and answer.

Sorry if you go to WWW.ABC7Chicago.com it is the 5th tab over marked as "ON ABC7" then it is the 8th show down. Thank You for your time.

It looks far better, but I don't think it can really be considered a restoration, more a historically sensitive renovation. It looks pretty nice, but there are a few places where you can really see they had to rush.

Can you tell me what the diferance between a "restoration" and a "historically sensitive renovation"?
Also what is your take on the name " The LaSalle Bank Theatre"?

The show 190n is going to have from what i have ben told a whole show about the theatre to be aired on Sunday June 11th 2006 @ 1035pm(cdt) right after the 10:00pm News cast the show will be named.....
"190 North goes inside the LaSalle Bank Theatre" from what i was told and from what i have seen in the prevews thay are going to go "behind the curtain" type of thing. Thanks for your time if you can watch please do it. thanks again.

As I see it, a restoration is interested in taking a place as close as feasible to opening day (Really, none of the major downtown Chicago theaters has been FULLY restored). The effect of history and its changes should be mostly invisible. Here, they just tried to make it resemble its original decor; at least on the opening tours, you could see plaster with built-up, chunky paint obscuring detail, poorly painted sections, et cetera, especially in the balcony. They clearly had to rush to make it open, even despite the time overruns. One review of the work noted an inordinate amount of sheetrock. Now, they could have spent 5 times more and done a full restoration. I don't think that's really appropriate,and I don't really have any problem with the job they did- though it would have been cool if they had tried to recreate the long-lost themed bathrooms. It's a fine house and one Chicago can be proud of.

Thank you for explaning now that makes it a bit more lucid to me.
One other thing,do you know if the first name was even thought to be used? The Palace , and The Orential have their "first" names in on the marquee just wondering why the Majestic name or for the mater the shubert names were not kept?

Well, Shubert had become something of a misnomer, because the Shubert organization had sold the theater to the Nederlanders (basically their broadway arch-rivals) in the early 90s; however, they never changed the name. The Majestic name hadn't been used for the theatre since the early 1930s - although the office building had retained it - so there was little pressure to use that, especially considering that the new hotel in the former office building is going to be, I think, Hampton Suites at the Majestic Building. Considering Lasalle Bank was forking over so much to renovate it, it must have seemed fitting to rename it that way. I really don't like the new marquee, though. It looks goofy and doesn't really resemble any of the historic marquees except the Shubert one, only with the added odd curvy thing on top. One nice touch, though, is that the bottom of the canopy is modeled after the original metal that had been left in place all those years, exposed during the renovation. [url=http://iconeon.blogspot.com/2006/05/majestic-shubert-lasalle-banktheater.html]Here]Here} is the article i've mostly paraphrased that covers it well.

Well all that i have to say is thank you.
And it is nice to hear that at least the name of the Majestic is going to be used in some form. I have not realy looked at the marquee that well i will have to look for it later or to night when 190n does the show on it,i have heard that the marquee is "something to see"! the reason i think is to get more people over there becuse if you can recall eather in winter or when the weather is bad it is very dark around their and thay want people to be able to find it.

Just a Thought. Thanks




Thank You For Your Time.

A few "COMMENTS" about the new LaSalle Bank Theatre.....
I just finshed waching the 190n special on it and here are my comments.
I like the new paint i think that thay did a good job in the auditorium, The seats look soft and comfortable, I do not care for the top of the marquee from my point of view the top of the marquee looks like the grill off of a old car. And i ask this question....
All through the 190n show they kept on saying the the Majestic,Shubert LaSalle Bank Theatre or what ever you want to call it was the oldest theatre at time of compleation is this true?






I mean what about Adler and Sulivans "AUDITORIUM THEATRE" (50 E.Congress PWK.) That whole bulding the hotel and the theatre were compleated in somthing like 1888-1889. Can some one please make some sence out of this for me?
Also i have to ask this question,what is going on with the "Handheld ticket scanners" i my oppnion the scanners are to be used in a venue like a ballpark or some other large venue not in a theatre certany not in a theatre that seats something like 2,000 people.
Just my POV THANK YOU for you time and space.

That is strange. I think the Studebaker/Playhouse theaters next to the auditorium would predate it as well. Maybe they just didn't do their homework. The ticket scanners are really to avoid counterfeit tickets. That way, once a given barcode is scanned, they can be sure no one else comes in with a copy. It also lets people use print-at-home tickets, which are increasingly popular.

Thank You for the information i will have it look in to the Studerbaker/Playhouse theatre.
I know that what is now the "Artest`s cafe" was whare the Studerbaker showroom was that is why the buld. is called the Sudebaker Buld.
And on the corner of Michigan/Vanburen i think that is some kind of private club. that was the sight of the 1st art instute, then they moved it to the present lo cal. Whare the Art Instute sits now was a structure theat was the setting for a Opera fest.
Witch was how the Auditorium Theatre came to be the Opera Company had no real home and a man named F.Peck came up with the idea for the theatre.
And here we are to day.
But i will check out the Studebaker/playhouse.
Thank you for your time and space.:)

Here is an early interior view of the Majestic Bar, which is the space that was recently incorporated into the lobby as a lounge and box office. All of it is gone now except the ceiling, but it seems that nobody realized even that was there until the restoration started.

Here is a postcard view of the Majestic building.

The building has just been dramatically cleaned and had its Terra Cotta repaired. The scaffolding is down and it looks wonderful, aside from that silly marquee.

Here are photos of this theater.

They have to call it the LASALLE BANK THEATER; is it a bank, or a theater; a theater or a bank, etc. 2 mints in one!

The description says it sometimes played films. This jogs my memory that MY FAIR LADY was road-showed there (1963). Si? No?

Thank goodness for this renovation or whatever you want to call it but at least it looks like a theatre again. The Shubert and the Golden Gate in San Francisco are the most depressing theatres to see a show! Now lets get The Gate looking grand again!

With yesterday's announcement that Bank of America will be acquiring LaSalle Bank, it looks like this theater will get another new name...

G. Feret, I don't know how much help this is, but MY FAIR LADY was not released until October 21, 1964.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, This Is CINERAMA!"

Tonight on WBEZ Radio (NPR in Chicago) I heard that the Bank of Scotland is also interested in acquiring LaSalle Bank. What would the theatre be called then?

"Gee dad it was a WurliTzer!"

Chicagoins cheer up! It could be worse in Boston the glorious Metropolitan Th. first became the Wang Center to salute the computor corporation who greatly helped with the renovation. Now, the theatre is becoming the Citi-Wang Theatre to honor the Citi Bank which has given money, it sounds like the title of a porno film, Citi-Wang!

Yes it does i was thinking right along thoes lines !!! LOL
My question is this is their some one involved in the planing or the nameing pros. that looks at what the name will be?
So that situations like this would not happen?

Also can you invision CITI-WANG THEATRE emblazened across a marquee or up on a vert. sign ? LOL

Thank you for you time and have a good day :)

It can only look better than it did before. Verty depressing place when i sat there in the mid 90s.

"Citi Wang" would be bad enough, but "Wang Citi" would be even worse...

Although the merger has been ongoing since April, Lasalle Bank is now officially part of Bank of America and will soon be rebranded accordingly; presumably, the theater will follow suit. Let's all hope it becomes the Bank of America Majestic Theatre.

Here is a better scan of the Majestic Bar's interior. Again, this is now the ticket lobby.

Some research has indicated that Rapp's involvement may have been limited to the elaborately themed and now lost mens and women's lounges

My dentist, Doc Schwartz, was the first trumpet in the Orchestra of the Schubert Theater and played with it for many seasons (over 20, I would think), retiring, I think, with "Hello Dolly." He was feted during that run and the cast attended the party.

He told me stories of his trumpeting days (his first love). His family wanted the children all to become professionals so he chose to become a dentist but still played trumpet secondarily, on radio broadcasts beginning in the '20s (with studio bands or as a soloist closing the broadcast night out after the music feeds ended from NY). I asked him if he had his own sheet music then and he said, "sheet music?" They were jazz musicians! His office was on the north side at Lawrence and Damen, but he grew up on the south side and he and his friends would steal out of their parents tenement apts and flats late at night to crawl along parapets and L sidings and other rooflines to reach the fire escape of the big (Savoy?) ballroom and lift the windows, or even climb in and sit way up in the rafters, to hear the great jazz musicians play, after whom they would pattern themselves and teach themselves; that being the way they set their own standards. He told me he heard King Oliver and (adding with disdain, as to virtuoso skill) his "insignificant" second trumpet, Louis Armstrong. (In musicology it is my understanding even Mr. Armstrong did not classify himself at the level of King Oliver.)

I saw "Hello Dolly" at the Schubert. I am not sure if I saw "Fiddler on the Roof" there or elsewhere. In high school I and some friends were offered the opportunity to be ushers for Flower Drum Song (probably late 1961-63) and then view it for free. I think that was at the Schubert, but am not certain. After accepting our assignments and heading way up a long, narrow stairwell to the top balcony where we were to work, as we reached the last part of the upper stairwell, one of my two friends told me she suffered from "vertigo" and couldn't go on, which caused my curtness to rise to the occasion. I was accused of being unsympathetic.

Perhaps, if it hasn't been renamed yet from its corporate moniker, it might be given a name representing continuity from its past into its future.

Shubert, like the showmen; not Schubert, like the composer.

Does anyone know when they ever screened films here? I always remember it as live theater. I would be interested to see history and photos of the Erlanger and Great Northern as well. Does anyone know if the THSA archives data on live stage theaters in addition to movie houses? Thanks in advance.

It's always worth a try, the folks at Theatre Historical Society are very knowledgable. Good luck.

In 1913, Edison demonstrated a talking pictures invention at the Majestic. Another special presentation of dancers in a film was held in December of that year. I found one reference to it showing films before its vaudeville programs for a little while starting September 1927. This could not have lasted long, because it quit the vaudeville policy by the end of that year and was only open sporadically after 1931. Plans were announced in 1933 to reopen it by the Monroe-State theater company (operators of the Roxy in Franklin, IN, and houses in Kokomo, IN, Peru, IN, and Ottawa, IL) This operated for about a year until Jones, Linick, and Schaefer took over the lease. This did not pan out, and the Majestic remained closed for 11 years before reopening as the Shubert on September 19, 1945

THSA has files on some live houses, but for the most part it is not as extensive as the movie houses since that was not its initial focus. Something like the Majestic would probably be on-file.

On June 5, 1946, the Shubert Theater was ordered closed by the Chicago Fire Commissioner for violation of fire regulations. The theater did not have a required electric pump on their sprinkler system. (The theater had ordered it but had yet to be delivered.)

The Shubert is one of my favorites. I walked by there every night on my way to a security job at the old USG building at Monroe & Wacker in the early `80's. A unique early `60's structure in it's own right with heated sidewalks, etc., now gone though.

However my favorite story about the Shubert is seeing "A Little Night Music" with Jean Simmon's and Margaret Hamilton there in late 1977.
We all waited in the ornate lobby as it was promised Ms. Hamilton would come out and say hi.
Almost 40 years from Oz, after a short wait a door slowly opened and she shuffled out carrying shopping bags.

Hauntingly, many children who had waited to see her, and surely understood nothing of "ALNM" which they just sat through, all in unison took one step backwards for every step she took forwards. Always keeping themselves at at least a 5 foot distance.
A chilling site that Ms. Hamilton surely but understandibly, must have encountered her entire life after Oz.
I was 17, but still for a brief second felt the fireballs might come flying.

Kind of sad really since it's documented that she was a kindergarten teacher before ever taking the Wicked Witch role. And surely adored children early on. Even as Cora the Coffee lady, she was sweet.

In 1991 I saw Robert Morse as Truman Capote in "Tru" at the Shubert. Currently in AMC's "Madmen".
He too greeted well wishers in the lobby afterwards. Yet pointed at his throat, and could only shake hands, smile & sign what was put before him.
Then he just casually walked out the front door alone, and off to his hotel. No entourage or TMZ back then.

About a year ago I shot a piece for Cable 25's "Your Town Chicago", about Broadway In Chicago. We interviewed the top lady of BIC, in one of the upper side balconies at the Shubert.
The stage was set up for "12 Angry Men" with our own George Wendt.
However we couldn't shoot the stage, and had to supply all our own power.
BIC graciously provided all other footage we needed from current shows though. It was just the interview, theatre facade & background we needed anyway. I guess I didn't notice that it was now BoA Theatre when there.

does anyone have recent photos

Reactivate Notification Status.

Lots of cool Chicago photos in this set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeusofhollywood/3375156240/

Worth your time to look around.

Here's a recent picture of the Bank of America Theatre (taken on July 1, 2009):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bruce_theatres/3679680638/